Thank you! I will submit a new patch addressing the issues you have pointed out.
Richard Smith <[email protected]> writes: > On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Guillaume Papin > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I implemented it in cpp11-migrate at first but then thought it > would be > a better fit next to hasInlineBody(), so it would mimic > FunctionDecl::hasBody()/getBody(). It feels strange to me to have > hasInlineBody() without its getter counterpart. But no problem for > me to > put it back in cpp11-migrate. > > I tried to find a case where it's risky to insert the override but > I > couldn't find one (e.g: a specialization dropping 'virtual' is not > matched). Do you have one in mind? > > Something like this: > > template<typename T> struct Derived : T { > void f(); // adding 'override' here will break instantiation of > Derived<Base2> > }; > struct Base1 { > virtual void f(); > }; > struct Base2 {}; > > Derived<Base1> d1; > Derived<Base2> d2; > > > Richard Smith <[email protected]> writes: > > > I'm not convinced this is the right approach: getInlineBody has > weird > > semantics and thus it doesn't seem like a good fit as a general > > purpose AST interface. It would make a lot more sense to me to > have > > the fallback to the template in the cpp11-migrate code, where it > can > > also handle other consequences of this, such as classifying such > a fix > > as "risky" (because it might not be correct for every > instantiation). > > > > On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 7:21 AM, Guillaume Papin > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Uh, embarrassing, of course I failed the attachments: > > > > > > > > -- > > Guillaume Papin > > > > _______________________________________________ > > cfe-commits mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits > > > > > > > > > -- > Guillaume Papin > > > -- Guillaume Papin _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
